34178 Followers
91 Following
Contributing reporter to the New York Times in London, author of 'Plotters: The UK Terrorists Who Failed'
Website: https://www.lizziedearden.com/
This scenario was raised by the High Court judge who granted Palestine Action permission for the judicial review
He said anyone charged as a result of the ban is "likely to be able to raise alleged unlawfulness as defence" and it was an issue magistrates’ and crown courts can't decide
This is going to be absolute chaos in the courts, because the judicial review deciding whether the ban of Palestine Action is lawful isn't being heard until November
What are courts supposed to do if people start running defences that they were arrested on an unlawful basis?
The press release doesn't say what offences the 60 were charged with or give any details of the people such as their names or ages
The wording suggests it's section 13 of the Terrorism Act 2000, which covers the holding of signs showing support for Palestine Action
The Metropolitan Police has announced charges against a further 60 people for allegedly showing support for Palestine Action
It says more than 700 people have been arrested since it was banned as a terrorist group and work towards more prosecutions continues
Judgment has been reserved on the injunction until 2pm on Tuesday
In written submissions, Somani Hotels said concern about The Bell has "spread far beyond locals who might have a genuine concern" and granting Epping Forest District Council's request would "set a dangerous precedent that protests justify planning injunctions"
The case will continue this afternoon
Mr Riley-Smith said that there were a "number of meetings" between the council, Home Office and CTM where details of the most recent use were discussed earlier this year
He said plans were "open, transparent and flagged well in advance to the local authority" and there was no planning objection
Piers Riley-Smith, for Somani Hotels Limited which owns The Bell Hotel, is now making his submissions
He argues that the high bar for an injunction is not met, that CTM should be a party and that an injunction would cause harm to hotel owners and to "Home Office’s statutory duty to asylum seekers"
The term “hotel” is not defined in planning legislation, so we're on case law in the High Court
Epping Forest District Council argues that asylum seekers do not pick the hotel or the length of their stay and are therefore not "guests", and that the Bell Hotel is a “hotel” only in name
Epping Forest DC's written arguments say planning permission was discussed but on 15 May hotel owners said: "The Home Office has advised that in the Government's opinion the hotel is contracted on exclusive use terms as a hotel, not a hostel, and so they do not support a change of use application"